“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown.  His cottage may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter.  All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” – William Pitt, British House of Commons 1763.

It’s been said that housing is the single most important factor contributing to a family’s financial and emotional security. Secure and stable accommodation is central to our well-being.

In recent years a disturbing trend has emerged in the level of home ownership among young families. It is in substantial decline. Those who bought into the housing market before 2000 when prices were low have done very well, but those who have bought since then have had to take out big mortgages in order to enter the market.

Housing is being consolidated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Homelessness is growing. Low income people – young people in particular, are spending a much higher percentage of their income – up to 50%, on housing costs than previous generations at the same age, and the number of young people in rental accommodation has doubled. The number of years to pay off a home loan has also increased dramatically and the number of people who are ‘mortgage free’ by age 50 has halved.

The severity of the problem is also being masked by low interest rates. An interest rate rise would be catastrophic for the many homeowners who have borrowed huge sums in order to enter the market highlighting the danger of measuring affordability by the capacity to meet mortgage payments, rather than the total amount borrowed.

In creating the conditions for housing to become the privilege of the few rather than the expectation of the many, governments have produced intergenerational inequity and breached the moral contract between generations which dictates that we should leave things better than we found them.

In making housing less affordable for the next generation it has denied them much more than a roof over their heads, it has denied them the security and benefits that go with home ownership and the opportunity to provide options for themselves in later life.

Those who own their homes have much more control over their lives. Many are now choosing to defer having a family in the hope that they will be able to somehow put together the funds to buy a home later in life. If they can’t afford to buy a house, they certainly can’t afford to have children.

German economists are said to be baffled by reports that rising house prices in many western countries are deemed to be ‘good news’. In Germany, inflation in house prices, like inflation in energy prices or food prices, are considered just the opposite. How can it be “good news”, they ask, when it now takes two incomes to support a mortgage when previously young couples could buy a home and raise a family on one income? Or that a homebuyer will pay many hundreds of thousands of dollars more in mortgage payments and government taxes and charges than would otherwise be the case?

The immutable laws of supply and demand – the causes of high housing costs

It was once the case that if a person, or indeed a country, knew how to make something, the world would beat a path to its door. The factories and mills of 19^th Century England bore witness to the power of being able to make things. Britannia ruled the waves. Today, manufacturing is global. From motor vehicles to whitegoods, kitchen appliances, widescreen TV sets, personal computers, mobile phones, the world is awash with supply – and demand. And yet despite this ever-increasing demand, prices continue to fall.

So why does housing – a simple manufactured product, defy this trend? Why does a house, which like other manufactured goods containing readily accessible components, increase in price out of all proportion to other consumer products?

Demand stimulators like immigration, low interest rates, favourable tax treatments and first home buyer grants have unquestionably increased demand for housing, however increases in demand do not, of themselves, cause prices to rise. The exponential increases in demand for mobile phones, laptops and digital TVs has not led to increases in price. In fact the opposite occurred – prices have fallen, in some cases by more than half due to increases in supply of these goods. The 1950s and ‘60s population explosion – the ‘baby boomer generation’ saw massive increases in housing demand but house prices remained stable because supply kept up with demand.

So what has gone wrong?

On the fringes of our cities there is a more than adequate supply of cheap land and a housing industry ready, willing and able to put houses on it at competitive prices.

So why are houses not being built on this cheap land? Cheap land attracts not only home buyers but commercial interests as well, leading to more employment opportunities.

The answer is simple – money.

Take South Australia as a case study.

The SA Land Commission Act of 1973 clearly stated the aim of the Land Commission was “the provision of land to those members of the community who do not have large financial resources”. The Act further made it clear that the Commission “shall not conduct its business with a view to making a profit.” Once the Commission was up and running however and the potential to start making a quid became apparent, these noble motives were quietly ditched. Clauses like “shall not make a profit” were deleted and replaced with “maximise financial returns to government”. The Commission then changed its name to the SA Urban Land Trust, then to the Land Management Corporation then RenewalSA. The SA State Government has made millions by manipulating the land market – all at the expense of housing affordability.

Members of parliament have also hopped onto the property-owning bandwagon with numerous ‘investment properties’ of their own and, keen to maintain their own wealth, publicly support urban planners who continually rail against the so-called evils of ‘urban sprawl’.  The resulting urban growth boundaries which restrict home building activity through zoning laws, force new home buyers into high density housing developments in inner suburbs. It is the monetisation of urban planning.

Claims that urban sprawl is bad and that urban densification or urban consolidation is good for the environment, or that it stems the loss of agricultural land, or that it encourages people onto public transport, or that it saves water, or that it leads to a reduction in motor vehicle use or that it saves on infrastructure costs for government are false.

Urban consolidation is an idea that has failed all over the world. Whether it’s traffic congestion, air pollution, the destruction of bio-diversity or the unsustainable pressure on electricity, water, sewage, or stormwater infrastructure, urban densification has been a disaster. Urban consolidation is not good for the environment, it does not save water, it does not lead to a reduction in motor vehicle use, it does not result in nicer neighborhoods, it does not stem the loss of agricultural land, it does not save on infrastructure costs for government and worst of all it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes. Sir Peter Hall of the London School of Economics claims, “The biggest single failure of urban densification has been affordability.”

This limiting of housing on the urban fringes of cities distorts the inner suburban market where the ‘Save our Suburbs’ groups – committed to maintaining the character of existing suburbs by limiting the amount of additional in-fill housing, are highly effective. This further exacerbates the supply/demand distortion.

And it’s not as if high rates of construction of high density housing apartments – a favourite of urban planners, leads to improved housing affordability. Sydney, Toronto and Vancouver which have seen very high rates of high rise apartment construction are among the worst cities in the world in terms of affordability. Here again, planning restrictions limiting the number of apartments per site in the form of height restrictions add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of an apartment. In Sydney for example, the average construction cost of a high rise apartment is $430,000 whereas the sale price is over $800,000.

And it is young home buyers, hit with the spiralling costs of home ownership who end up paying.  Whilst it is true there has been an increase in younger people preferring CBD apartment living, they are mostly forced into these overpriced units without being given the option of a low cost, free-standing home of their own on a large block on the fringe. Given the price distortions inherent in today’s housing market, it is impossible to know what the trade-off points might be between downtown living, size of home, large backyard, children, pets, and suburban living.

Given housing is such a political hot potato, governments have responded but unlike ‘the war on drugs’ where governments primarily focus on trying to limit supply, with housing, the overwhelming response by governments has been calls to try to limit demand – lower levels of immigration, the removal of favourable taxation treatments – negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts and bank lending restrictions.

These are merely window dressing, and, together with measures like changes to self-managed superannuation fund rules, pension rules, first home owner grants, shared equity schemes, social/public/community housing projects, deposit saver accounts, stamp duty exemptions for people down-sizing, congestion taxes, land taxes, negative gearing, capital gains tax, bank lending restrictions (eg requiring banks to have less than 30% of loans as ‘interest only’) they are totally ineffective at solving the affordability problem.

Red tape, green tape, housing taxes, zoning taxes, development charges

Planning controls, development restrictions, environmental regulations, multiple jurisdictions, minimum lot sizes, lengthy approval processes, ‘developer’ contributions, ‘affordable housing’ requirements on new housing developments … building a house is no longer a simple matter. What has for centuries been an uncomplicated industry has become mired in planning rules and regulations which have sent land prices skyrocketing. Restrictive planning rules – effectively housing taxes, now account for up to 50% of the cost of a house.

Traditionally, actual land costs have been no more than 20% of the total cost of a house and land package. Average construction costs have also been fairly consistent across most jurisdictions at approximately $1,000 per square metre, a figure that has changed little in over 20 years. This equates to an average construction cost of a 150 square metre starter home of $150,000. Likewise land development costs – roads, water, sewage, power, telecommunications, footpaths and street signage, across most jurisdictions are consistently around $40,000 per lot. Add profit margin and raw land costs of $10,000 per lot for a total house and land of $200,000 – three times median incomes.

The affordability of housing is overwhelmingly a function of one thing – the extent to which governments impose rules and regulations over the construction of houses and land allotments.

In essence, what has been described as a ‘housing affordability’ problem is simply a ‘land affordability’ problem.

Regrettably, the general public is profoundly ignorant of the underlying causes of housing unaffordability.

Edmund Burke once said “It is the job of political leaders to teach people that which they do not know”.

First, what not to do. As discussed above, policies which seek to suppress demand – lower levels of immigration, the removal of favourable taxation treatments – negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, bank lending restrictions, changes to self-managed superannuation fund rules, pension rules, congestion taxes and land taxes, are futile. As are attempts by governments to assist home buyers with first home buyer grants, shared equity schemes, social/public/community housing projects, deposit saver accounts and stamp duty exemptions for people down-sizing.

As for what to do, first and foremost, where they have been applied, urban growth boundaries or zoning restrictions on the urban fringes of cities should be removed.  Residential development on the urban fringe should be made “permitted use.”  In other words, there should be no ‘zoning’ restrictions in turning rural fringe land into residential land.

Second, create a low entry level for those wanting to develop housing allotments. Smaller players need to be encouraged back into the market by abolishing compulsory so-called ‘Master Plans.’  If large developers wish to initiate Master Planned Communities, that’s fine, but they should not be compulsory.

Third, allow the development of basic serviced allotments ie water, sewer, electricity, stormwater, bitumen road, street lighting and street signage.  Additional services and amenities – ornamental lakes, entrance walls, childcare centres, bike trails and the like can be optional extras if the developer wishes to provide them and the buyers are willing to pay for them.

Fourth, no up-front developer or infrastructure charges.  All services should be paid for through the rates system – paid for ‘as’ they are used, not ‘before’ they are used.

Fifth, the Federal Government should consider using corporations powers to override state or city planning laws to allow land holders the right to make their land available for housing.

Similarly, the Federal Government should reduce Commonwealth grants to the States commensurate with their profiteering from land supply constraints.

I’m loath to quote the United Nations but one of the UN’s sustainable development goals is “to ensure adequate housing for all by 2030”.

Without some decisive action, this goal will never be achieved.

Beijing to Damascus: A road to peace?

In a recent feature article in The Australian entitled “Christianity is China’s cross to bear”, Greg Sheridan asked whether Christianity can do for China what capitalism failed to do — namely, soften the harsh Marxist/Leninist/Nationalist atmosphere of Chinese society? Peter Jennings of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute followed up with “China picks up the pace of militarisation”.

So, is China to be friend or foe?

Rising tensions

At the moment, the trade negotiators, business executives and military strategists do not seem to be holding out much hope for anything other than a hot war, a cold war or a trade war; an increasing number of geopolitical experts predict armed conflict between the United States and China sometime in the next 10 years.

Graham Ellison in his seminal work, Destined for War, discusses the inevitability of the “Thucydides Trap”: that is the geopolitical situation in which a rising power (China) is confronted by a ruling power (the U.S) and the result is bloodshed.

This is a conflict Australia would not be able to avoid. It is here that Greg Sheridan underestimates Christianity’s power. Can Christianity soften Chinese society? It can do much more than that.

Judeo-Christian history in China

As Sheridan points out, the number of Christians in China has grown from four million to 100 million in the past 70 years. For this to occur during a period of some of the most savage anti-religious persecutions in modern history is, he says, almost miraculous.

Almost miraculous? It is exactly how Christianity started.

The most savage persecutor of the early Christian church was Saul of Tarsus, later to become St Paul the Apostle, a principal writer of the New Testament. Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus is etched into history.

Judaism and Christianity are also etched into Chinese history going back more than 4,000 years. For more than 2,000 years — before Abraham, before Moses, before Jesus, before Confucius, before Tao and before Buddha – the Chinese worshipped Shang Di, the “Most High God”, “Creator of Heaven and Earth”.

Numerous Chinese characters, texts and scrolls (Huang Di; Shi Ji; Sima Qian; Feng Shan and many others) bear striking similarities — many identical — to the Judaic Old Testament.

In the 16th century AD, Jesuit missionaries led by Matteo Ricci carried the Gospel to China, resulting in one of China’s greatest emperors, Kang Xi (1654-1722), showing great favour towards Christianity.

These Christian missionaries were also both scientists and mathematicians and, following St Paul’s example in his New Testament Letter to the Corinthians, became immersed in the culture of those they wished to reach. They spoke Chinese, wore Chinese clothes, understood Chinese literature and had great respect for Chinese culture, so much so they became political advisers in the Emperor’s palace.

In the 19th century, British missionary Hudson Taylor followed the same pattern and established the China Inland Mission with great success. Taylor brought nearly 1,000 missionaries to China, establishing schools, hospitals and churches throughout the country, such was the hunger of the Chinese people for Shang Di, the one true God, and for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some of the greatest scholars and experts in all things Chinese, from Ricci to Legge to Taylor, all acknowledged that the Chinese Shang Di, the Hebrew Yahweh, and the Greek Theos were the same God.

Authentic inculturation

At the moment, China is playing the role of Saul of Tarsus, persecuting the church, and, like the early disciples, the church in China is fearful of “the evil being done to the saints” (Acts 9:13). So while trade negotiators and military strategists are trying desperately to work out how best to deal with China, we should not ignore the power of the Gospel.

And if there is to be a Damascene conversion in modern China, Western respect for Chinese culture will be a crucial component.

The transformation of the Soviet Union provided a salutary lesson of what not to do.

Now, I admire the United States as much as the next guy, but Russia’s invitation to the Americans to help transform its economic system following glasnost and perestroika did not go well. Their cultures were incompatible. The Americans did not appreciate the importance of culture the way Ricci and Taylor did.

As the saying goes: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”

Conflict or Christianity? Let us pray for the latter.

Bob Day is federal director of the Australian Family Party and a former Senator for South Australia.

Legislation allowing gender-selection abortion and abortion up to birth is to be voted on in the South Australian parliament in coming days.

In light of this, the Party has written to all Lower House MPs whose 2-party preferred margin was less than Family First’s first preference result the last time the Party ran in their seats. How Members vote on this legislation will be of crucial importance when making preferencing decisions at the next State election due in March next year.

In marginal seats like Newland and King, we have said to first term MPs Richard Harvey and Paula Luethen that if they support this awful legislation, the Australian Family Party will preference against them. Newland and King wereFamily First heartland polling between 8.0 and 9.0 percent of first preference votes. Both MPs are on margins of under 2.0% so who gets elected will be very much down to preferences.

The Party is serious about this. We believe the lives of unborn children are precious and must be fought for.

Photo credit: Walk for Life Adelaide, 6 February 2021. Image by Mike Burton, The Advertiser.

In her report ‘Worlds Apart’ released this week, Indigenous author Jacinta Nampijinpa Price analysed a wide range of data from locations and communities across Australia. Her report describes the vast difference between Indigenous communities and the rest of Australia when it comes to health and wellbeing, employment, education, crime, and domestic violence.

‘Education and employment rates in remote Indigenous communities are on a par with countries like Afghanistan’, she says. ‘Health and severe overcrowding in housing is like that of sub-Saharan Africa. School attendance rate is below countries such as Zambia and Iraq and life expectancy places remote Indigenous communities on a par with third-world countries like Yemen and Eritrea.’

‘Alcohol-fueled crimes occur at an abnormally high rate, petty crime is commonplace, and assaults are a regular occurrence. Within the home, the situation is just as bad. Domestic violence rates are so high that women and children do not feel safe in their homes. These factors then feed a vicious cycle that impacts school attendance, employment, and physical and mental health — leaving many communities at breaking point”, she says.

Australian governments spend over $30 billion a year on Indigenous programs yet the gulf between the world most Australians inhabit and the world a high number Indigenous Australians occupy is as wide as ever.

In the same week, News Ltd columnist Michael McGuire did Indigenous Australians no favours by invoking the myth of ‘terra nullius’ (The Advertiser, 27/1). McGuire talked about ‘acknowledging the actual history of the nation’ but then repeated the myth that ‘Australia was founded on a lie, that the land was empty and that the people who were here didn’t count’.

No-one in the 1700s ever said those things. The phrase terra nullius wasn’t used in reference to Australia until the 20^th Century. Australia was settled in accordance with the principles of international law at the time and ‘terra nullius’ was not part of it. International law mentioned res nullius but that is not the same as the modern day usage of the phrase terra nullius.

Telling people false narratives about their past is not uncommon and can absolve them of personal responsibility. But to do so at a time when family breakdown amongst Indigenous communities results in domestic violence rates up to 1000% higher than non-indigenous families is unforgivable.

In its submission to the Federal Parliament’s Inquiry into the Family Law System, the Australian Family Association has recommended that couples who separate should have to wait two years instead of the current one year before filing for divorce (unless there is a history of domestic violence). This was described by News Ltd columnist Tory Shepherd this week as “wanting to drag marriage back into the dark ages”.

Shepherd opened her article by asking “Marriage? What is it good for? A cracking party, a delightful expression of love, a way for families and friends to get to know each other?” In a letter to the editor I wrote that more than a ‘cracking party and an expression of love’, marriage is an extremely important social and public good bringing a range of economic, health, educational, and safety benefits for children and adults alike. Divorce on the other hand can have some terrible consequences. It’s why we should do all we can to strengthen marriages and promote the benefits of marriage, including giving couples more time to ‘mend it, don’t end it’.

The attacks on marriage, life and family are relentless.

What is going on? The SA Liberals seem determined to undermine the rights of faith-based organisations. Last month, Deputy Premier Vickie Chapman proposed removing exemptions which allowed faith-based organisations to run their schools, hospitals and other services in accordance with their beliefs. Now Liberal Treasurer Rob Lucas wants to deny a Christian college its payroll tax exemption.

Tabor College launches Supreme Court action against Commissioner of Taxation over more than $360,000 in payroll tax

Mitch Mott December 26, 2020 Sunday Mail (SA)

An Adelaide religious college is taking the tax man to the state’s highest court over a decision to make them pay more than $360,000 in payroll tax.

The majority of the students who attend Tabor College are studying to the join the ministry, but Treasurer Rob Lucas decided the school was acting as a tertiary institution and should be taxed accordingly.

In an application for review of an administrative decision lodged in the Supreme Court, and seen by The Advertiser, Tabor College argues their main purpose is the advancement of religion, a recognised category of charitable pursuit.

Tabor’s application is the latest in a series of cases challenging decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation to remove tax-free exemptions.

In March this year the High Court refused to hear an appeal from South Australian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc, known as Business SA, in an attempt to wrest back $2.6m in payroll tax.

The refusal bought to an end a five-year legal saga between the lobby group, who claimed they should have charity status, and the Commissioner for Taxation, who disagreed.

In February this year Trinity College Gawler took the Commissioner to court over the refusal to grant staff at their sports centre Starplex tax-free status.

That case has since moved to mediation.

The court actions have implications for other charities offering registered education courses.

In January 2018, Tabor College wrote to Mr Lucas seeking clarification on its charity status.

They were told in a letter a few months later they were not eligible for a payroll exemption, prompting the school to launch an administrative objection.

The matter was not resolved and Tabor College began action in the Supreme Court.

In court documents Tabor said the purpose of the school as enshrined in their constitution was to “promote and provide quality Christian education”.

The school was founded in 1978 with the goal of preparing students for ministry.

Over the years the school broadened it approach until it described itself as a “multi-denominational, dual-sector Christian tertiary institution” offering government-accredited qualifications from vocational certificates to research doctorates.

Accredited degrees offered at the school include arts, social science, teaching and counselling.

Figures provided in Tabor’s court documents show 79 per cent of all courses are ministry-based with 70 per cent of students enrolled in those courses.

The school argues its focus is the “advancement of religion” by the “advancement of education”.

In their response to Tabor’s application, the Commissioner responded the school’s principal purpose was not religion, pointing to their receipt of Federal Government funding as a higher-education provider.

The documents show the Commissioner will argue that if Tabor’s efforts were divided between education and religion they should not be able to claim charitable status based on the advancement of religion.

The case continues before the Supreme Court.

---

Article reproduced with permission.

In 1967 Dionne Warwick recorded the hit song, ‘I Say A Little Prayer For You’. Fast forward to 2020 and the Victorian Government is proposing to make it a criminal offence to say a little prayer with someone about their gender identity. This gives rise to all manner of implications. It reminds me of the story of the small-town Texas liquor store which was in the process of building an extension to its premises. The local church, in response, started an around-the-clock prayer meeting to try to stop it. Work continued on the project right up until the week before its opening when lightning struck the building and it burnt to the ground.

With the store in smouldering ruins, the church folk boasted of their accomplishment and of the power of prayer. That was of course, until the angry owner sued the church on the grounds the church and its congregation were responsible for the destruction of the store – either through direct or indirect actions or means.

In its reply to the lawsuit, the church denied liability and any connection with the liquor store’s demise.

At the opening hearing of the court case, the presiding judge read through the plaintiff’s (owner’s) complaint and also through the defendant’s (church’s) reply and said, “I’m not sure how I’m going to decide this, but it appears from the paperwork that what we have here is a liquor store owner who believes in the power of prayer, and a church congregation which does not”.

While this may on the surface appear to be somewhat amusing, there’s a very serious side to this, particularly in light of what is happening in Victoria.

Victoria’s proposed legislation targets anyone, including parents, pastors, priests, psychiatrists and psychotherapists, who engage in formal therapy or informal prayer with the purpose of helping a person struggling with same-sex attraction or gender confusion, unless the therapy supports their same-sex orientation or affirms their belief that they are ‘trans’. It also makes it a criminal offence to take a child out of Victoria to receive therapy.

As I have said before, the proponents of this type of leglislation are not trying to convince or persuade with reasoned arguments. Their aim is to shape society, and they want to use the power of the state to do it. To quote Mark Steyn, “They don’t want to win the debate, they want to prevent the debate”.

This assault on family, life and liberty sums up what the Australian Family Party is all about.

We have to resist this intrusion by politicians into every aspect of our lives. If we don’t, things will only get worse. We mustn’t be like the congregation in the story which didn’t have the courage of its convictions.

Part of the strategy has to be taking seats in parliament from them, State and Federal, either directly in Upper Houses, or in Lower Houses, through preferencing.

This is eminently achievable, but we need your help. Please support us by circulating this article, enlisting others and making a contribution by clicking Support here.

Thank you.

Further Reading: https://freedomforfaith.org.au/articles/labor-government-in-victoria-makes-prayer-a-criminal-offence/

It was GK Chesterton who said, “Throughout the ages we have spoken about having the courage to die; now we have descended into talking about having the courage to live.”

Over the past 20 years there have been 16 attempts to legalise euthanasia in South Australia. Each time it has been rejected.

Euthanasia is presented in many shapes and forms but is united in a single idea: it is the intentional ending of a person’s life. Over the years this has been cloaked with many euphemisms—’the right to die’, ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, and so on.

In the era of Covid-19, this latest euthanasia push in the SA Parliament gives rise to not one but two paradoxes – ‘protecting and preserving human life at all costs’ and ‘suicide prevention programs’.

Notwithstanding the massive burdens inflicted on the community, throughout the pandemic governments have said their primary aim has been community safety and that the preservation of life matters more than anything else. Governments opted for the health and security of the vulnerable over appeals from business owners and libertarians.

Which brings us to the latest attempt to legalise euthanasia in SA.

It begs the question, “At what age does a person no longer qualify for a suicide prevention program but enters into a suicide facilitation program?”

Now the poll we so often hear is that “70 –  80 per cent of people support dying with dignity”. Yet I wonder what the result would be if a different question were asked. For example, “Faced with a terminal illness, should we care for the patient, or kill the patient?” Polls can be designed to get whatever result the pollster wants.

Like any piece of legislation, the sensible place to start is with the facts. What is euthanasia? What is not euthanasia? Herein lies great confusion in the community, particularly when asked to consider opinion polls. Before considering what euthanasia is, let’s begin with defining what euthanasia is not. The Australian Medical Association policy on euthanasia spells out what euthanasia is not. None of the following is euthanasia: not initiating life-prolonging measures eg using a heart defibrillator; not continuing life-support measures, such as turning off life-support equipment; not offering futile care, such as ceasing prescription medication; the administration of treatment or other action intended to relieve symptoms which may have a secondary consequence of hastening death, commonly known as the doctrine of double effect, such as the administration of strong morphine dosage. None of these is euthanasia.

Almost every Australian knows of a usually elderly relative, perhaps even a close relative, who has died and the difficulty in seeing them die. That most likely informs their view on euthanasia. But no poll seeks to explain to them properly what euthanasia is and is not. People who are polled are also dismissive because they are not faced, at that moment, with an end-of-life decision. Lawyers tell us that, when preparing what are now known as ‘advanced care directives’, clients are, before proper advice, quite dismissive about their care options. ‘Just flick the switch’, they say with a smile. But when they or a loved one are faced with a situation it is not that simple.

It is fashionable to talk of ‘a dignified death’. But death itself is a wholly undignified and tragic reality. It is also a very personal reality, one that cannot be resolved by its acceleration. To burden doctors, who are agents of healing and life, by forcing them to participate in premature death, in killing, is a distortion of their vocation. Worse still, forcing them to do so against their conscience is a dangerous path indeed.

Terminally ill people are often overwhelmed, depressed, easily influenced and extremely vulnerable. In truth, they have far less autonomy during this time than at any other time in their lives. It is very likely that they will require their families and friends to routinely assist in their care. Tending to the needs of sick loved ones and sticking with them to the end is a dignified display of love and selflessness. Most importantly, it is a witness to outsiders of sacrificial love and familial obligation. For those who do the caring it forges a character of resilience, enabling them to persevere in times of trial. For those who do the dying, opportunities develop to reconsider past hurts and biases and for reconciliation and making peace. End-of-life moments can be the most powerful healing moments for the dying person and their loved ones.

Assisted dying offers an alternative – evasion and abandonment. Family and friends cannot face the emotional investment or the painful reality of suffering. Even in the most loving of families, there are requests for doctors to refrain from dragging things out. It is often not the dying person but the family member who wants the suffering to end. In worst cases, there are ulterior motives for wanting the death of a relative. We are only beginning to understand the extent of elder abuse. We have to realise that in some cases what began as a well-intentioned exercise in being a carer for another person can become such a burden that dark thoughts and schemes develop, particularly where money is involved—be it real estate, funds, or the proceeds of a life insurance policy or policies. No matter how many safeguards, checks or balances there are, the hunger for power, revenge or money can steer its way around many hurdles. According to the 2020 Aged Care Royal Commission, the systemic neglect of the elderly is so pervasive the whole sector should be ripped up and started again!

The overseas experience is also cause for grave concern with studies revealing serious shortcomings around consent safeguards. Professor Cohen-Almagor of the UK’s Hull University discovered that life-ending drugs are administered to people without explicit consent. This involuntary euthanasia is despite strict provisions which were supposed to guarantee voluntary euthanasia. Tragically, even children are becoming caught up in cultures transformed by these laws. The Netherlands, for example, permits children as young as 12 to be killed and Belgium has no age restrictions whatsoever.

The writing is on the wall: so-called ‘safeguards’ have not prevented a comprehensive weakening of medical and legal standards. What was intended for the elderly has now become available to all ages. What was intended for physical illness is now for mental illness. What was intended for terminal illness is now for serious illness. What was intended to be consensual is now non-consensual. Soon, euthanasia will be available for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all.

The weight of evidence is an embarrassing rebuke to advocates of so-called ‘safeguards’. There are none. And once people have adjusted to a so-called ‘new normal’ the safeguards will be continually reviewed and seen as intolerant and cruel, and should be removed. We do not have to turn to other nations to see this in action. It has happened in Australia. Some of the people euthanised under Northern Territory legislation from 1995 were not even terminally ill.

When referring to the Northern Territory, we should note its higher percentage of Aboriginal people—many of whom do not live near hospitals. Aboriginal people do not like euthanasia, and legislating it in South Australia will create an environment where they might be disinclined to seek health treatment for fear of involuntary euthanasia. Many people believe in supernatural healing. For some, euthanasia is sorcery and against customary law. Submissions from Aboriginal people to the Northern Territory Select Committee on Euthanasia were overwhelmingly against it. One submission from a Yolngu woman stated:

“We were and are nomads, hunters, food gatherers, ceremonial and cultural people who will give comfort and tender loving care to our terminally ill relatives.”

She continued:

“Because our terminally ill relatives know that they are dying they usually want songs to be sung, they want to hear the last sound of their traditional songs and the sound of the didgeridoo and clapsticks.”

In summary, the Australian Family Party opposes euthanasia. Euthanasia does not provide the dignity its advocates claim. Human beings are built to live and survive, and the deliberate ending of a life prematurely removes value and worth. Euthanasia is the wrong way to treat those who are old and sick. The Australian Family Party is committed to supporting palliative care programs which enable people to live with dignity for the whole of their lives. Vulnerable patients dependent on medical professionals for their health should not be subject to proposals of premature death.

The rights of faith-based organisations are about to be seriously eroded. Led by Deputy Premier Vickie Chapman, the SA Liberal Party is proposing to remove exemptions which have allowed faith-based organisations to run their schools, hospitals and other services in accordance with their beliefs. This is what happens when there is no conservative alternative in the parliament to block these leftist policies. For those advocating ‘joining the Liberal Party and changing it from within’, this theory has now been totally debunked. It doesn’t work. The only way, I repeat, the only way to stop them is to take seats from them, either directly in the Upper House as Family First did from 2002 to 2018, or in the Lower House, through preferencing. If we are serious about protecting the rights of faith-based organisations then we need to act.

Australian Family Party’s position is outlined on the Free to Believe page.

The primary aim of the Australian Family Party is to put the family at the centre of every conversation. Recent media reports about Australian SAS troop actions in Afghanistan have drawn widespread attention culminating in calls for the service medals of those who served and died be taken from their families. The Australian Family Party strongly opposes this. In a ‘Letter to the Editor’ which was published in the Adelaide Advertiser on 28 November 2020, Australian Family Party Federal Director Bob Day said the following:

Dear Editor,

As if the families of the Special Forces Task Group haven’t sacrificed enough (“Soldiers facing dismissal”, The Advertiser, Friday).

The most painful of all human emotions is betrayal. It cuts deeper than any blade. The State has a duty to these families. Society has a duty to these families.

And what the State and society owe these families is recognition. Recognition for taking on roles the rest of us cannot even begin to imagine.

Bob Day
Australian Family Party